Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Audi A4 2005+



  • dl7265dl7265 Posts: 1,381
    Has Audi released then why the 1.8T mill in particular has oil sludge and engine failure issues, when consumers followed Their recommended maintence scheduals ?

  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    My bet is that the engines that had problems were using substandard dealer provided oil. I cannot prove it, nor can I prove that my first BMW dealer did the same thing to my 328i, however, that engine was pretty gunked up (as viewed from the oil filler opening in the cam cover) after only 45,000 miles. That of course takes me back to my previous statement of, "Assuming the car was properly maintained..."

    I'll take that one step further. After owning a couple of turbocharged engines back in the 1980s and early 1990s, I learned that anything less than a high quality fully synthetic oil in a turbocharged engine is NOT proper maintenance, regardless of what the manufacturer recommends.

    Best Regards,
  • Oil, oil, everywhere and not a drop to drink.

    The use of syn oil "ought" to have been from day one -- oooooops, "my bad."

    Of course my dealer rails on and on about using "bad gas" and urges the use of only Top Tier gas:

    Clicky Click

    Wonder if anyone listens considering the number of folks who insist their Audis and VWs run just fine on the rot gut regular stuff.

    Of course then we get into that whole "false economy" thing about how it techically costs more to burn regular in one of these cars, and I figure, some folks simply like to spend more money and flaunt it.

    Me, I can only afford Premium. Hope I can still be a member. . . . :cry:
  • dl7265dl7265 Posts: 1,381
    I can only afford Quick trip TOP TIER, not only because its Guaranteed, but its also the best priced in my area :P

  • Perhaps Audi would be better off offering fewer MTs and quickly introducing the DSG clutchless manual in the A4. I love manuals but the DSG rev-matching technology makes the A3 a blast to drive. That would set them apart from Merc. and BMW.
  • Its impossible right now. The DSG just wont fit into the A4's engine bay unless the engine is configured transversely (A3, TT, VW). Look for it on the B8 A4 coming out in late 2007/early 2008. Hopefully by then all S-line package A4's will have 60/40 rear-biased drive and HOPEFULLY they will place the motor behind the front axle like any normal car manufacturer.
  • Audi for mostly "righteous" reasons appears to want to keep the TorSen system for quattro. The sideways placement of the engine in the A3 and TT in the quattro versions has caused them to be Haldex rather than TorSen.

    Audi may, for all I know, abandon TorSen, but it seems to me to be unlikely that they will do so especially since they spent the money to move the torque split from a nominal 50 50 to a nominal 40 60 (F/R.)

    For the life of me, I don't know why they felt compelled to change the torque split, other than for marketing reasons. And, before you respond with all the "yes, but" reasons that, while accurate and true, are almost irrelevant on the freeways, highways and secondary roads and streets most customers drive on.

    TorSen does offer a virtually unique advantage (and frankly some disadvantages, most notably weight and cost) and that is it acts without needing to have slip happen first. TorSen "binds" and transfers power as if it "anticipated" wheel spin.

    This can be a tremendouse advantage.

    On the other hand, it may have its greatest advantage and applicability for conditions other than the normal roads driven upon by "civilians," as opposed to race car drivers.

    I too, wish the weight situation would have been addressed -- yet even with the nose - heavy stance most Audis offer, they handle very well indeed.

    DSG is a cool technology -- but Audi has its current manual transmissions capable and ready to go.

    My only question is did the customer mandate this or was it foisted upon the customer.

    The BMW store here in River City frankly has all but stopped carrying stick shift 3's and 5's.

    At least the Audi store always seems to have plenty of A4's and S4's with the MT.
  • . . . exactly what is the difference that Mr, Ms, and Mrs. John and Jane Q Public would recognize between a 2005 Audi A4, A6 or A8 with the then current 50 50 split TorSen and the touted 40 60 split TorSen coming on line in several of the cars including the RS4, S4, S6, S8 and Q7.

    TorSen acts -- NOT reacts -- in real time to transfer torque to where it can do the most good. TorSen, the 50 50 TorSen still current in most Audis acts instantaneously rather than virtually instantaneously like the BMW's X-drive for instance.

    What is the big deal in the real world of Interstate highways, state divided and non-divided highways, secondary roads and urban and suburban streets and alleys?

    Quattro -- TorSen quattro -- has had at least a terabyte's worth of information 'splaining its operation published for years. Most of the explanations -- not from Audi, BTW -- laud praise on the system. The main footnotes that one could interpret as negatives have to do with the weight and higher relative costs of TorSen versus other types of AWD systems being employed by the likes of Acura, BMW, Cadillac, Infiniti, Jaguar, Jeep, Mercedes, Volvo and VW (to name a few.)

    So now we can claim we have a RWD biased quattro. It's not like the quattro was 95% FWD and 5% RWD nominally like the Volvo S60 Type R (and some of its siblings and rivals.)

    The enthusiast's publications are all over this like cheap cologne as if it is THE HOLY GRAIL of putting down power.

    Whoa -- I am NOT against this development. Generally, I am in favor of it -- and assuming nothing else was back-burnered to achieve this new torque split, I herald this "advancement."

    If it serves no other purpose than "shutting up" the comments that Audis 50 50 AWD is not a "proper" performance oriented split, well, even that is a good thing.

    Does it really show itself off "on the track" (and how many $35,000 - $105,000 Audis bought by "the folks" are actually put on the track)?

    I see, under normal everyday circumstances, no reason to choose 50 50 over 40 60 if given a choice. But it seems there are so many other engineering challenges that could be addressed, why bother with this one?

    I would rather have, just to pick something, ceramic brakes, bigger wheels and tires, term insurance for my wife, etc.

    I'm sticking with the perception is reality reason and truth in advertising reason -- the customers are told "you need to have rear-biased AWD" -- most of them don't know why but since they keep being told it, well "it must be true."

    I would rather Audi kept the Audi Advantage than succumb to pressure to adopt what will, for most folks, be an invisible benefit (for all practical day to day purposes.)

    Since we are marching down the road to 40 60, what the heck -- keep marching. I just find it odd that so much is being made of this.

    The new A4 B8 is gorgeous and if the 7-speed DSG can be adapted, GREAT, and if the 3.2 or 3.6L FSI engines or even some super torquey diesels can be brought to the US, well even better.

    I saw that the breathing (without forced induction) of the 3.2 can be (already has) been improved to pump up the power to 300. Imagine a new B8 A4 with a 7spd DSG and a 300HP 3.2 FSI or 3.0 TDI.

    Woo Woo! :shades:
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    While I've never had a problem acknowledging the superiority of the TorSen system over other AWD systems, I am having a problem with some of the language used to extol the various positive attributes of each.

    Let it be known that I have the utmost respect for Mark and his knowledge of Audi's way of doing things. That having been said, I'm going to use his most recent post on the AWD subject to illustrate where I'm having the aforementioned problem:

    "TorSen acts -- NOT reacts -- in real time to transfer torque to where it can do the most good."

    Hmmm, the above language would lead one to believe that the TorSen system is "ProActive" as opposed to reactive, and I simply cannot buy that. For a system to truly be "ProActive" it would have to be either prescient or have some ability to "see" or otherwise sense slippery surface conditions (as well as the relative slipperiness of the surface for each tire) before the individual tires actually arrive over said slippery surface conditions. Once the system has figured out exactly how much power each wheel will be able to put down, it would then need to dynamically adjust its torque split accordingly. To the best of my knowledge the wizards over at Audi have yet to figure out those two little tricks (i.e. the proactive sensing coupled with the proactive adjustment). ;-)

    So, following the above thought through to its logical conclusion (and skipping the obvious logic in-between), the TorSen system must then be considered a "Reactive" system just like the rest. That having been said, it might could well be able to react much faster due to its inherent design superiority and "seem" to be proactive as a result.


    Best Regards,
  • Maybe the fact that Audi's TorSen is mechanical and almost everybody else is electrical by design gives Audi a wide margin in reliability ?
  • I hope this doesn't get "us" in trouble -- but since this mostly an Audi topic (AWD/quattro/TorSen), I will take a chance.

    Over on the now dead LPS blog, I wrote a lengthy (who me?) discussion of TorSen, on the one hand, vs "everybody" else, on the other, as a method of differentiating "why" TorSen is technically superior in the quest for traction, control and performance. I also did and do acknowledge the two main penalties associated with TorSen -- it is if not the most expensive it is the #2 most expensive system for AWD power distribution, today. And, it is heavy -- weight as we generally violently agree (with each other) is the enemy of performance, economy and handling.

    Conversely AWD does bring with it many benefits, most notably for "civilians" (and that includes me) the go anywhere sense that the quattro encourages and facilitates.

    TorSen is NOT predictive, of course -- and I actually said in my previous blog that it ACTS instead of reacts.

    My point, and I am not upset that you called me on it was to suggest that the speed at which TorSen "reacts" is instantaneous. There is virtually zero lag time from when a loss of traction event begins until the TorSen "binds" to instantly transfer power to where is can be used.

    Other systems need wheel slippage to get this the AWD benefits underway.

    There are real, demonstrable benefits.

    quattro vs the rest

    Yet, a point I also make and concede is that it almost may be an issue of "who cares."

    The pro TorSen crowd argues that TorSen is "for all practical purposes" the best AWD system because it transfers power essentially "in anticipation" of wheel slippage where the other AWD systems only transfer power ONCE WHEEL SLIPPAGE has already begun. Big difference, to be sure. But from a practical point of view does the person looking at the $50K Acura, Audi or even Volvo know, let alone appreciate, the huge difference between a car that has deployed a Torque Sensing AWD technology versus Haldex (like the TT?) Do customers at this level understand the difference between BMW's X drive and quattro (TorSen) and Infinitis AT ESSA (or whatever the heck it is called) or Acura's SH-AWD?

    Audis system can be demonstrated to be costlier, heavier and superior.

    Does anyone care?

    The folks at some weblog sites basically think that without TorSen Audi (again) squanders its reasons for being able to lay claim to having the best AWD cars in the world (at the price.) But, others argue that customers and prospects A: don't know and B: don't care.

    What/how does Audi differentiate itself from the rest of the All Wheel Drive Premium Performance Sedans, then? Style, colors, options, content, price/value?

    Beats me -- TorSen may not carry the weight as it should or could have due to the fact that Audi did not educate customers over the past 25 years.

    Now, it seems, all AWD is created equal.


    Probably, but not technically.

    Perception is reality, not the "proof" that can be offered.

    The cat is out of the bag, AWD is a very rapidly growing segment based on who offers it and how many are sold.

    AWD is darn close to be a prerequisite to being allowed to play in the Luxury Performance Class and the Near-Luxury Performance Class (just as Dr. Piech predicted almost 25 years ago.)

    That and $.50 gets a cup of coffee from the machine.

  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    I'm still having problems with the language. :blush:

    "The pro TorSen crowd argues that TorSen is "for all practical purposes" the best AWD system because it transfers power essentially "in anticipation" of wheel slippage where the other AWD systems only transfer power ONCE WHEEL SLIPPAGE has already begun."

    To my way of thinking, any AWD system that isn't prescient MUST react "ONCE WHEEL SLIPPAGE has already begun", TorSen or no. I'm thinking that the hair that needs to get split here is "How much wheel slippage?" and/or "What duration of wheel slippage?" before any given system alters its torque distribution. My bet (based much on what you've written) is that the TorSen system is the quickest of the "Reactive Systems" currently available on the market, but still reactive none-the-less. Yes, no?

    Best Regards,
  • "My point, and I am not upset that you called me on it was to suggest that the speed at which TorSen "reacts" is instantaneous. There is virtually zero lag time from when a loss of traction event begins until the TorSen "binds" to instantly transfer power to where is can be used."

    Put another way and in answer to your question: yes.

    Maybe this will help:

    "Unlike conventional speed sensing, limited-slip differentials, TORSEN T-3 is a full-time torque-sensing, torque biasing system. Torque and differentiation are continuously managed between the front and rear axles and biased instantaneously according to variable road conditions, automatically shifting the power to the wheel with the most traction before any wheel slip can occur. There are no clutches or preload to worry about, in fact, the TORSEN T-3's patented helical planetary gearing system is designed to perform for the life of the vehicle.

    TORSEN T-3 Traction Differentials are available with a locking capability range of 20-30% and a nominal split from 65:35 and 35:65, front to rear. The T-3 can be designed to fit most transmissions or transaxles with no modifications required. In addition, it is fully compatible with ABS, Traction Control Systems, and Stability Control Systems, providing the ultimate traction management systems."

    "ENHANCED PERFORMANCE The TORSEN T-3's capability to immediately respond to variable driving conditions not only provides better traction, it also enhances the general performance of a vehicle. There is a marked improvement in total tractive effort as compared to open or speed-sensing center differential equipped vehicles. In addition, the exceptional efficiency of the T-3 allows the engine's torque to be used more effectively, delivering more horsepower to the road. The combined improvement in traction and the augmented power results in a nimble yet sure-footed vehicle that provides better handling, increased acceleration and an improved margin of safety."

    "With TORSEN, the vehicle has true all-wheel drive, driving all the wheels all the time. This can provide optimal traction management and deliver more power to the wheels, resulting in improved vehicle stability, handling, and performance."

    - JTEKT Torsen North America, Inc.

    And this:

    "A far more efficient (and expensive) 4WD layout is the one involving a TorSen ( which stands for TORque SENsing) differential. This extraordinary device, invented by the American Gleasman (patent pending, 1958) and manufactured by the Gleason corporation, is based on the non-reversibility of worm gears and worm wheels (i.e. when you turn the worm wheel the worm gear turns but not vice versa). The TorSen is the only mechanism which acts like a differential and locking device at the same time. It has the advantage of being fully mechanical which guarantees its instantaneous response and progressiveness. Its main advantages therefore resume to:

    Instantaneous response

    The linear character of its locking to speed difference curve (smoothness)

    No locking or speed difference inhibition under braking (it acts only when power is applied to it)

    Integrates a "free" differential and a locking device in one part

    Its compactness, the TorSen has only 8 moving parts

    No wear as opposed to more traditional self-locking differentials based on friction plates"

    "The most important difference between TorSen differentials and viscous couplers is that the TorSen has a torque sensing characteristic while the VC has a rotation sensing characteristic. That's why TorSen differentials only lock when power is applied to them whereas viscous couplers lock both when power is applied and while braking."

    - Tryphon Georgallides 2006
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    I think this horse has been beaten within an inch...

    That said, I need to go one more round, sorry about that.

    So, the above text includes the following language:

    "Torque and differentiation are continuously managed between the front and rear axles and biased instantaneously according to variable road conditions, automatically shifting the power to the wheel with the most traction before any wheel slip can occur."

    I'm thinking that the above is marketing biased language and that the "...before any wheel slip can occur." statement supports that thought. I mean, if zero wheel slip has occurred before the system shifts around the torque split, then it is indeed prescient, something that we know that it isn't. So, to my way of thinking, there must be at least some wheel slip (maybe only a degree or two of rotation), before the system senses the need to send the power elsewhere.

    Asked another way: If the system is truly capable of shifting the torque prior to even a single fraction of a degree of wheel slip, then what event process is employed to control said torque split?

    Best Regards,
  • dino001dino001 Tampa, FLPosts: 3,426
    From what I know (not a lot), the main difference can be described as "electronic" or "mechanical". Torsen or multiplate clutch systems (as I understand it) are mostly "mechanical" splits (not that there is no electronics there), thus the "reaction" is instant by its nature. "Electronic" systems rely on some "brain" to tell them what to do - as a processors speeds are stil finite, there must be some time between the input and output data, thus perceived delay in response, especially that as conditions change due to very response of the system response, new response needs to be recalculated. Such delays do not occur in "mechanical" systems, which are "analog" in their nature, as input/output is continuous.

    That would be, very simplistically, a reason why Torsen Audis and Subarus (and say Mistubishi Evo) are still the "best in the pack" in terms of actual behavior of their AWD vehicles (those that are actually available to purchase).

    2012 BMW 328i wagon, manual and sports package. No. sold in the US: 1. Probably.

  • I have read and read stuff for years and the net I always walk away with is that it "acts in concert" or "acts at the same time as the slippage WOULD otherwise occur."

    It is not predictive per se, of course, it is just that no slippage happens as the action is entirely "solid" -- there is no lag because it is entirely mechanical in its "action" (or if you like, reaction.)

    The key take away does seem to be that this system does NOT require wheel slippage PRIOR to acting.

    Big advantages can accrue.

    Audi has almost exclusively used TorSen (except in the transverse engine mounted autos.)

    Hope the horse is on its last legs! :shades:
  • dl7265dl7265 Posts: 1,381
    Boy, great stuff from our two favorite board elders ( said in respect) . To further the thought of "pre crime" or pre slippage, whats to say there wouldn't be a false slippage read, that did not occur?

    I have very simple needs, how about Audi purchase a "rolling" RWD chassis and 50/50 weight bias from BMW and slap on their beautiful skin,... Now that would be the ultimate compromise in my mind.

  • Hi... I have, from the beginning used minimum 93 Octane gasoline in my now 10 month old 2005.5 A4, which has just passed the 10K mile mark.

    It had its 5K service on time at the dealer, who I presume used the prescribed oil in the change.

    My wife drives a 2005 A4 cab, has a couple of K more miles than mine. She drives it gently, I don't drive mine gently... use the Tip a lot etc.

    This weekend I noticed something troubling. My shiny chrome tail pipe extensions aren't shiny any more. They're pretty much covered with black sooty stuff. I wiped most off with a rag, but couldn't really restore the shine. I looked at the cab... shiny with minimal sootiness...

    Am I being paranoid... is this just normal for my car vs hers, or is this an indicator that maybe my engine is burning dirty?

    Does anyone think this is worth mentioning to the dealer?

    Otherwise I wouldn't suspect any problems. The car knows my driving style now and is very responsive. Any thoughts???
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    " about Audi purchase a "rolling" RWD chassis and 50/50 weight bias from BMW and slap on their beautiful skin..."


    I think I just wet myself... :surprise: :blush:
  • Does anyone know if Audi increased the invoice price on their models in 2006, specifically the 3.2Q manual trans?

    I have a car on order, negotiated in Dec, and when checking the price again on Edmunds saw something different than in my notes.
Sign In or Register to comment.